KEEPING VIGIL: Media persons keep a close eye on the developments inside the Taj Hotel in Mumbai; (Top) a TV grab showing the movements of two terrorists inside the hotel

For two groups of people, the sunrise at Mumbai’s Apollo Bunder on Saturday was — in many ways — both an end and a beginning. The first group, of course, comprised the elite National Security Guards (NSG) commandos, who flushed out the last dregs of terror from the iconic Taj Mahal Hotel after nearly 60 hours of intense action.

The second group consisted of those microphone-wielding, camera-toting personnel that the nation collectively calls the “electronic media.” Having kept pace with those engaged in the line of fire, they, too, had answered their call of duty, relaying every moment of the drama that gripped the imagination of a nation.

For three days, they braved physical danger and ducked every time gunshots rent the still air, only to keep their cameras rolling for the benefit of an insomniac audience, consuming the action beamed into their living rooms by satellite, moment by moment, blow by blow.

Indians had 24x7 updates from the scene of action, while reporters, camerapersons and anchors put sleep and hunger behind them to report every development taking place. Ad slots were reduced, and Indian channels — for the first time — devoted themselves to “maximum coverage,” as many analysts have put it.

“The media did a decent job, exercised restraint and behaved in a very responsible manner,” says Uday Shankar, CEO, Star India. “There were a few slips, but none which had any telling effect on the ground.”

The channels for the first time took stock of the failing security infrastructure, lambasted the political fraternity for inaction, and put pressure on the government to sort out the mess. This was no longer the tight-lipped reporting that was once de rigueur, à la Doordarshan. A statement was being made.

And in doing so, the telly people perhaps went through a rite of passage, graduating from being mere newsmongers to donning a role far more momentous.

But the brigade of TV go-getters, curiously, faces flak for supposedly overstepping its boundaries while covering the Mumbai siege. Hear it from veteran media observer Sushil Pandit, founder director, Exchange4Media. “The viewers’ need to know or a channel’s need to tell does not override the hostages’ right to live and the rescuers’ right to safety,” says Pandit. “When it comes to covering matters of national importance, one expects a certain degree of solemnity from the media. This was gross criminal negligence.”

Pandit’s observations are not completely unfounded. Throughout the terror strike, channels — locked in the race for one-upmanship — routinely resorted to the rabbit trick called “breaking news.” If one channel was claiming how its reporters had beaten others in capturing “exclusive” footage, another was relying on “sources” trapped within the hotels, or following commandos with their cameras into a besieged building. One vernacular channel even secured an exclusive telephone chat with a terrorist holed up within one of the hotels. “Surrender, or you will be roasted alive,” said an anchor.

Many fear that the media may have jeopardised the rescue operations by disclosing strategic information to the world. “Terrorists watch TV too,” says M.K. Dhar, former joint director, Intelligence Bureau. “So if you reveal the strategy that the commandos are adopting, you’d only be helping the terrorists, who could quickly change their positions based on your reporting. This is a live operation. The media simply have to be kept away,” observes Dhar.

Out on the streets, commoners too haven’t refrained from expressing their concern over the episode. Tarun Garg, brother of Delhi-based Ramesh Garg who was trapped inside the Taj, says he was shocked to see channels showing the details of the operations. “I realise it is important to give news, but surely not at the cost of jeopardising lives,” he asks.

It appears, then, that not many are ready to credit the electronic media for their overdriven performance. Media critic and columnist Anil Dharker thinks media personnel put themselves at “grave personal risk, which sometimes bordered on foolhardiness.” Dharker recounts that there were bullet shots going off while he was being interviewed by a channel. “We were ducking instinctively. I thought, ‘How does being so close to the site help one get more relevant information?’ It seemed an unnecessary risk.”

N. Ram, editor-in-chief, The Hindu, agrees. “Yes, there was a lot of bravery shown by the media, but at its worst, it was insensitive, inaccurate and irresponsible,” he says.

For an example, one only needs to go back to Thursday morning, when Captain Vijay Raichand and his family were rescued from the Taj by firemen. The moment he stepped on terra firma, a shaken Raichand was mobbed by TV crews, hungering for a byte, before he was finally rescued by policemen. “You media people have no consideration,” a cop there said with disgust. “How do you expect them to speak when they are in a state of shock?”

Not everyone, however, would want to discredit the TV media’s efforts. Not least of all the detractors, who would all acknowledge at some point that the coverage, despite its glitches, was riveting, dedicated, and gripping. Besides, there are those who would readily defend the media regarding the way they performed through the crisis.

In pleading the media’s case, Uday Shankar points a finger at the “security bureaucracy, which has completely failed in their own task and now puts the blame on the media.” Some strategically-important information might have been spilled by error, he admits. “But show me one police officer who stepped up at the scene of action and informed the media about the Dos and Don’ts? How can you blame the media for overstepping the line when you haven’t drawn a line for them to adhere to in the first place?”

Media critic Sevanti Ninan would agree. “You couldn’t wholly blame the media for showing off-limit footage,” says Ninan. The National Broadcasters’ Association had issued a directive on Thursday at 6.30 pm to channels urging them not to divulge details of the operations, but Ninan points out it did not spell out anything clearly. “You need a body to tell you what is allowed and what isn’t in clear terms,” Ninan explains.

And in any case, most would — as a parting shot — hand it to the media for daring to take a stand in terms of mobilising public opinion when it was required most. “Let’s face it, the national consensus that the politician-bureaucracy nexus failed to achieve was done by television,” says Shankar. “TV has finally succeeded in creating a level of awareness regarding the situation that confronts us all. If the government is feeling the pressure today, it’s because of the media,” he says.

Evidently, it was something the media had long wanted to do. Given the chance, channels went to town mobilising public opinion, quoting celebrities who were all of the opinion that they’d had enough of the conniving ‘netas,’ and that the government had some answering to do.

“Commendably, the media pushed its brief to gauge the scale of the human tragedy and expose a nation’s total ineptness in protecting its own people,” says outspoken adman Suhel Seth. “We all know politicians are scoundrels, but the cliché was hit home in the harshest manner possible,” he says.

Bouquets or brickbats? But one thing’s clear: Indian television has indeed made a crossing.